DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Insomuch as the function of the claimed “control module” requires an algorithm, controlling software that is only nominally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.01(I), which states: “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (emphasis added)
For example, the Specification is entirely devoid of any algorithm, steps, procedure, or flowchart which would detail the claimed functionality, and is likewise absent any substantial discussion of any algorithm. Therefore, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed” (MPEP 2161.01(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gripper Designs (see NPL of 12/27/2023 IDS).
Regarding the claims, Gripper Designs discloses the following:
11. (Original) An apparatus of a mechanism that converts rotary motion into linear motion, the apparatus comprising: at least an actuator configured to generate linear motion of a plurality of gripping components, wherein the at least an actuator comprises: a rotary component (“blue” rotary component visible at 2:27 in the NPL video, labeled by examiner in image), wherein the rotary component is configured to generate rotary motion about a rotational axis; one or more movable components (“red” movable components, attached between griping arms and rotary component), wherein the rotary motion of the rotary component leads to off-axis motion of the one or more movable components; and at least a connecting component (each of the coupling points between the rotary component, movable component, and grippers) comprising: a first connecting component, wherein the first connecting component is configured to: mechanically connect the rotary component and the one or more movable components; and transfer the rotary motion of the rotary component to the one or more movable component; and a second connecting component, wherein the second connecting component is configured to: mechanically connect the plurality of gripping components and the one or more movable components; and transfer the off-axis motion of the one or more movable components to the plurality of gripping components; the plurality of gripping components (“green” components, also shown in second screen shot, taken at timestamp 2:22), wherein the plurality of gripping components are L-shaped (second screen shot show the L-shaped top portions of the gripping components nearest the rail) and configured to move linearly in opposite directions (i.e., as shown in the video, the green gripping components move linearly along the rail).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
1286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
12. (Original) The apparatus of claim 11, wherein: the first connecting component is configured to movably connect the rotary component and a first end of the one or more movable components; and the second connecting component is configured to movably connect the plurality of gripping components and a second end of the one or more movable components (as shown in examiner-annotated figure, above).
13. (Original) The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the rotary component is configured to rotate about the rotational axis in a first direction, wherein the rotary motion of the rotary component in the first direction moves the plurality of gripping components into a closed configuration as a first gripping component gets pulled while, concurrently, a second gripping component gets pushed (described motion is shown in video).
20. (Original) The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising: a guiding component (e.g., housing or track that grippers move along, as shown in video), wherein the guiding component is configured to guide the plurality gripping components in linear motion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gripper Designs (see NPL of 12/27/2023 IDS), in view of Trujillo et al. (US 2012/0328402), as evidenced by Shelton, IV et al. (US 2019/0183503).
The YouTube video only shows the mechanical structure of the gripping mechanism, and is silent regarding the controlling operation of the mechanism.
Trujillo teaches a control module (12, 14) comprising a system on a chip, wherein the control module is configured to: receive a gripping force of the plurality of gripping components from at least a sensor (para. 101-103), wherein the at least a sensor detects the gripping force as a function of current drawn by a motor mechanically connected to the rotary component (para. 101-103), wherein the plurality gripping components comprises a gripping threshold (i.e., stall condition, and/or MIN/MAX values; para. 105-109), wherein each gripping component comprises a specific gripping threshold based on a thickness of a gripping object (the motor current at holding location corresponds to thickness; see evidence provided by Shelton, para. 274); and execute a control signal for the plurality of gripping components to hold a gripping object using the gripping force within the gripping threshold (para. 101-103, 107-109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the control module as taught by Trujillo in combination with the structure of the YouTube video, in order to provide the known advantages of computerized control, to include increased speed, accuracy, or adaptability of the robotic control.
The combination meets the remaining claims as follows (mapping to NPL unless otherwise noted):
15. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control module comprising a processor is further configured to: receive a first closed position of the plurality of gripping components in the closed configuration without holding the gripping object (Trujillo: para. 101) using the rotary motion of the rotary component from the at least a sensor (Trujillo: para. 103); and determine an open position of the plurality of gripping components in an open configuration as a function of the first closed position (Trujillo: paras. 82-84).
16. (Original) The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the control module is further configured to: receive a second closed position of the plurality of gripping components in the closed configuration holding the gripping object from the at least a sensor (Trujillo: para. 87); and estimate a thickness of the gripping object as a function of a difference between the first closed position and the second closed position (Trujillo: the motor current at holding location corresponds to thickness; see evidence provided by Shelton, para. 274).
Regarding claim 17, Trujillo teaches generating and storing stall signals in memory 29 (para. 48). The Examiner takes Official Notice that thickness, or the difference in thickness, is defined by the subtraction of position values along a single dimension (e.g., such as determining measurements with a ruler or calipers), and that simple subtraction was ubiquitous to the computer arts. As such, it was extremely well known in the art that control modules were capable of performing the limitations of claim 17, and that using a computer to perform the claimed operations provided the known advantage of allowing accurate thickness calculations.
18. (Original) The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the control module is further configured to determine a partially open position of the plurality of gripping components for a partially open configuration as a function of the second closed position (Trujillo: para. 82-87 allow for multiple gripper positions between closed/open maximum thresholds).
The limitations of claim 21 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL, in view of Ruoff et al. (US 4,921,293).
Regarding claim 19, the YouTube video only shows the mechanical structure of the gripping mechanism, including a textured pad, but is otherwise silent regarding the materials of the mechanism.
Ruoff teaches the covering of the tip of each finger has a resilient and pliable friction enhancing surface (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the friction enhancing surface as taught by Ruoff in combination with the mechanical structure of the YouTube video, in order to provide enhanced friction to the gripping surface, e.g., and therefore a more robust grip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s summary of the interview of 04/29/2025 and the general thrust of the arguments pertaining to the newly-amended limitation of “L-shaped,” it is noted that differentiating features of the instant invention (e.g., most easily shown in instant figs. 2) which could overcome the prior art were discussed, but no agreements to specific claim language were made. Upon further consideration, the specific claim language, as amended, is still met by the prior art of record, inosmuch as the gripping components are shown to have an “L-shaped” structure (i.e., the top of the gripping component nearest the rail). However, for Applicant’s benefit, Examiner still concedes, as stated in the interview, that there are structural differences between the the prior art of record and the instant invention, e.g., as best shown in figs. 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 5712707778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658